Dear Editor,
What has been most disheartening to me is the glee with which the rape of Olive's tax base has been pursued by the other Towns in the Onteora District and the County. If Woodstock and Shandakan would expend as much energy in fostering their own tax bases perhaps they would be better able to bear their own share of the burden. For example, Woodstock made the choice to spurn expansion of the old Grand Union market, to spurn the advances of Marriott and any other developer who sought to build something of substance. More power to Woodstock and their love of open space and small town charm...why give up anything when they can come take Olive's tax base?
Perhaps we need to look at other large parcel candidates in the Onteora District, like the Belleayre Ski Center...how would Shandakan like that? Are all the Towns in Ulster County sharing the tax base of Ulster where the HV Mall and all the big box stores are shoehorned into a compact strip? Sounds like a large parcel to me.
There are many ironies in this situation. By invoking the Large Parcel issue, the School Board has sunk any hope of seeing a budget passed in Olive, ever, so now they want to pass the hot potato. The school district gets no benefit from this controversy, it only suffers. No additional revenue is raised, and Olive's loss will be faintly felt in reductions in the tax bills of the other towns, yet Olive will get a massive wedgie right where it hurts. Thanks.
Of course, I am seeing this as a resident of Olive, but I am also a former resident of Shandakan and Woodstock. After IBM left I experienced a significant drop in income from my sales as an artist. By 1996 I was hurting, and relocating from Rosendale to 'low-tax' Olive really enabled me to stay in New York, as opposed to going to North Carolina or Virginia. Olive's low tax status has been under continual threat since I moved here, first from the City of New York and their attempt to lower their assessment around the reservoir, and now this Large Parcel rape. The squeeze is on and seeing the glee of our 'neighbors' is distressing.
Onerous taxes will continue until structural changes are made in funding education. Perhaps the school board should look to the coal and steel industries for their next initiative: declare bankruptcy, void labor contracts, pension and healthcare commitments and sell the schools. The Large Parcel act was designed to prevent tax fluctuations on large capital installations, like power plants, whose values could be manipulated by an Enron style management. Its use on a reservoir in Olive, which covers more than half our town, is a move worthy of Enron itself.
Robert Selkowitz
Ashokan, NY

Dear Editor, The Supervisor of Woodstock stood before the Board of Education numerous times crying, “Fair and Equal!” He even duped the Supervisor of Shandaken into making it a duet. If the School Board’s decision to enact the Large Parcel Bill was to level the playing fields with regard to school taxes, what will happen now that citizens within Woodstock who pay more taxes to Saugerties and Kingston are now crying, “Fair and Equal!” to their own Town Board. Should they now take their “pound of flesh” or “bucket of water” from Olive’s former reservoir or will Mr. Wilber figure a way to redistribute tax money to make Woodstock’s school taxes “ Fair and Equal!”
Did Mr. Cross and Mr. Wilber never hear of the old saying, “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?” When Ulster County’s Real Property Office was asked about Shandaken’s last reval, the answer was, “I think it was in the seventies. I have been here eighteen years and it hasn’t been done within that time period.” How can Shandaken with an archaic tax assessment base and with 75% of its state land under-assessed, point fingers at Olive and cry, “Fair and Equal?”
Last year Olive negotiated a higher assessment of the Ashokan Reservoir and rigorously initiated a town-wide reval to keep up with Woodstock’s assessment that was done in 1992, and updated twice, and with Hurley that does a yearly update. Will the Onteora School Board now direct its attention to Shandaken as the weakest tax link of the District?
How about the Towns, not the school district, doing the business of the towns? Next year the Board of Education should avoid the option of the Large Parcel Bill; stop meddling in the Home Rule of the towns and get back to setting Educational Policy! Karen Hanson
Shokan, NY

Dear Editor,
There are a number of issues scattered throughout the Olive Press of November 11, 2004 that I wish to comment on and perhaps correct.
The editorial begins with a "body slam" from the past when the writer refers to the "stolen election" [of 2000]. What part of the Constitution, Mr./Madam editorial writer do you not understand? Is it the electoral process [which is left to the several states]; or the single date for selecting electors; or perhaps the part you think the court(s) should play in the actual selection. The US Supreme Court did nothing other than to tell a lower [meddling] court to follow the Constitution. I should be delighted to review the Constitution with you in a public forum sir/madam, and let public embarrassment convince you that the 2000 election was indeed "on the level".
Then you refer to Ulster County's "ancient political dynasty" soon passing into oblivion. The dynasty is obviously the UC Republican Party which by it's succession each election cycle has risen quite often well above mediocrity. Gee, I was accused of attacking a family when I referred to them as a dynasty. What changed and where is my accuser lately?
Now on to other more important concerns such as a Police Commissioner giving much free time and direction. Who cares where a volunteer lives or votes when that person contributes to a community without compensation and the contribution is a sharing of talent and experience? So the person "fibbed" a little when stating that he "is" a police officer. I lied to get into the Navy at age 16 in 1943. What should happen to me? Lose my citizenship? Sharing is a gift you give to yourself.
Then we have Stacey Banks of Woodstock singing the praises of Supervisor Jeremy Wilber and the Onteora School Board for reaching into the pockets of Olive [and Hurley] taxpayers only because they could under the "Large Parcel" act. I would ask Ms. Banks and Supervisor Wilber if I as a resident of Olive might vote in a Woodstock election; the old "taxation without representation" thing, don't you know? Ms. Banks allows that a house in Olive with a market value of $100,000 should be taxed at the same level that a $100,000 home in Woodstock. Not so fast Ms. Banks. The reservoir which NYC pays taxes on requires no public services as your $100,000 home in Woodstock does and has no students attending Onteora. Likewise the businesses in Woodstock that require Police and Fire response, street maintenance and a park or two. (Anyone know of a fire or robbery in the reservoir? NYC doesn't even have insurance and you do). The asessed value of the reservoir with it's commensurate tax(es) causes the real estate and school taxes to be lower in Olive which is common all over the country. In fact a prospective new home buyer inquires as to schools, shopping malls, churches and TAXES when the real estate agent shows his offerings Ms. Banks. I can see your expression when your r.e. agent explains that "this town shares it's tax base income with East Gedunk, the next town over". Your reply?, "Oh my, that's not fair". Exactly.
One of these days soon this joke will end whether it's Olive's [and Hurley's] withdrawal from Onteora or a court intervenes. As for the Onteora School Board; your days are numbered as you come up for re-election. Those especially from Olive who "represented" Shandaken, Woodstock and Marbletown and led by a "biased" lawyer are targeted for extinction. You all now have the "Hutzpah" to point to the victims and declare yourselves not responsible for this debacle. You even suggest [led by the lawyer] that another group or [political] entity take over where you left off. If you, the school board are not happy with what you did you don't need anyone else to "shill" the game for you. Just back off the large parcel and do it the old way. We can live with the usual annual increase even if it takes two votes to "get it right".
Do you folks not know that politicians [which the school board has become] are noted for creating commissions, authority(s), associations and other "insulating" types of organizations? Try barking at the Governor for the MTA ineptness and you will be informed that the MTA is an independent public organization. (Incidentally we pay an MTA surcharge on our phone bills. When is the last time you took a subway in Olive?) This is your school board attempting to transfer the responsibility. They say now that they should not have to make those choices. Why didn't they say that prior to invoking the Large Parcel Act?
Remember folks. This is the same board that implied that we, their constituants are responsible for a short budget, depriving the children and cheating the school system. This is what lawyer/politicians do; blame the victim(s). So, under the circumstances we must reject the next proposed budget [both times] while working the court(s) and electing Olive board members who have Olive resident's rights and equality in their interests or establish the "Olive/Hurley" Central School District. Forget whatever relationship you have with the Olive "Benedict Arnolds" who now appear as scared rabbits in a forest fire. They have had more impact on the residents of Olive [in various ways] than any "real" politician of whatever office. In fact our other elected representatives are decent, reliable public servants.
I respectfully decline consideration for any elected position as I prefer being the "marksman", not the "target".
Glenn T. Anderson
Olivebridge, NY

Dear Editor,
I most certainly do not want to get into the legalities of the large parcel Law that has been implemented on the town of Olive. However after digesting what I have read, the law simply is not intended for parcels such as the Ashokan Reservoir. The town itself had been taken over and subsequently destroyed by New York City in order to build the reservoir. However, it now appears that adjoining towns, as well as Ulster County, have implemented the destruction of the people that live here or have moved here to make a better life knowing that there could never be much development as far as a town or business opportunities, due to the massive land holdings of New York City. They accepted this fact due to a lower tax commitment.
Now that the Large Parcel Law has been implemented by the Onteora School Board and the Ulster County Legislature I feel compelled to make my feelings known. It appears to me that in an effort to lower the tax base for other towns (and not by much - I still have an interest in Woodstock) the surrounding communities as well as the school board and the Ulster County Legislature decided to remove about 60 percent of the town of Olive's tax base to satisfy their own needs. Please keep in mind that this NYC land cannot ever be developed, and cannot be sold unless NYC sells its reservoir system. We are also under strict control of NYC DEP, which patrols our neighborhood quite frequently (what a benefit that is.) Apparently the surrounding communities, Ulster County and, for that matter, New York State, think this is acceptable. I have heard people say that we have been given ample time (one year) for the town to get our "house in order." However we should not and cannot, as a town, accept that people outside our community think or dictate that our house is out of order.
I suggest that the interpretation of the Large Parcel Law is out of order. I am alarmed and dismayed that the surrounding communities and the Ulster County Legislature have decided that this is fair to this community. I, for one, do not want to allow the State, Ulster County and the surrounding communities to financially destroy Olive and take away 60 percent of its tax base. Please remember most of the reservoir lies on top of the former town and surrounding hamlets. With all due respect to our elected officials (state, county and local), we need to stop the implementation of band aids such as this; stop pitting town against town and start doing the job of fiscally managing expenditures and, at the state level, implement true school tax reform. This would alleviate the present "taxation without representation" of second homeowners or people who own income property (why do we have such high rents I wonder?) who cannot vote on the school budget but most certainly have to pay the taxes. You would have the support of just about all the communities in the state instead of the misguided and destructive tax implementation we now have.
This is not just about equality in the tax structure, this is about a bill that should never have been applied to a reservoir; is causing extreme hardship to a community where the reservoir is located, and is intended to satisfy some Ulster County constituents for a year. When taxes are due to go up next year I am sure they will find something else. I propose a Small Parcel Tax Bill. How about it everyone, lets take the shopping centers and larger tax based companies (Ametek Rotron, Fleet etc..) away from the towns they are in and put them in the general fund for everyone to benefit. I think many other communities might be in trouble, but hey why not? Look at what just happened to the Town of Olive - anything is possible. I doubt this would happen though since a large majority of votes come from these communities and would most certainly be the demise of any politically oriented individual. From what I have seen of this whole issue, it is politics as usual with our elected officials who do not realistically address the issues but hide them, or at least cover them up for awhile. Americans are great at forgetting. We are all familiar with the saying "rob Peter to pay Paul." Well Peter was just robbed, Paul was just paid and my question now is who will be the next Peter?
Robert J. Croissant
Shokan, NY

Dear Editor, This letter is directed towards the person/people that stole the Alberta blue spruce from our property. I hope that the tree dies as the person who took it certainly doesn’t deserve it.
My huband and I bought this piece of property about 7 years ago. We were very excited about living here as the area is quite beautiful. We built our home and moved in, in December 1997. Since that time we have had people dump their trash on the road, trespass to hunt, jack deer from the top of our driveway and just disrespect things that are not theirs to disrespect! Now we have someone pulling over on the side of the road and walking onto our land and digging up and stealing a tree from us! Isn’t that just great!!!!
Well let me just say to that person who has the “SET” that you are a piece of crap! Where do you get off stealing a tree that my parents gave to us when we first moved in? You are probably the same person who threatened to shoot my dogs if you couldn’t hunt my property. Might I suggest that the next time you are looking for a tree, that you go to a nursery and buy one like most honest decent people would do, not drive around on country roads and scout out other people’s things to take. It is most disheartening that we live in an age where anything goes.
In closing I again would like to express my utter disgust at the person who did this and if I find out who you are I will be contacting you! May deer eat every one of your plants and termites invade your house!!! J. Scott
Samsonville, NY

Dear Editor,
There was a statement made in a recent article, Schanck Throws in Towel, October 28, of the Olive Press, that indicated (again) that I questioned the handling of the Olive Child Safety Seat Program. Other comments I have heard were that I wanted to blow this very important program “out of the water.”
Once and for all, I would like to respond to the misconceptions that have been handed out to the public in answer to my research into this program.
I originally addressed the Town Board and gave them numerous documents concerning the program which I found on the State Department of Transportation’s web site. Among other things, the site listed the Town as having a Child Safety Seat Program that was available six days per week between the hours of 2-4 PM
My concerns were that this program was made possible by a grant that had been issued in September, 2003. When I brought this issue to the Town Board, it was March 2004. No one that I spoke with even knew the service existed. And it was discovered that very same evening that others had tried to contact someone with knowledge about child safety seats when a child’s safety could not be properly re-installed. I still have the printouts that I presented to the Board that night, so Mr. LaMonda’s corrected documents (which he presented at the next meeting) only did what I was asking them to do in the first place - get things corrected and the word out that this service was being made available to Olive residents.
I did question the necessity of having duplicate services and the reason why they trained someone other than our full-time Police Officer. It just made sense to me that our full-time officer would be more available to offer the services. I NEVER suggested that the Town should NOT offer these important safety checks.
It’s really unsettling that anything of perceived controversy brought before the Town Board gets labeled as politics. Are you that defensive that you cannot admit when something may be wrong and need to be addressed? Or is it because for so many years no one has ever questioned how you handle things?
I know first hand how things are handled. I’ve been there. Our town board meetings are actually pretty sad. It’s so boring because all discussion has been done before the meeting. It’s just a formality, so folks don’t even bother to come. Not even the press covers our meetings. They get the news after the meeting by making a phone call. If there was nothing the town thinks was important, nothing gets written. When a few folks do come, comments whispered from the podium are: “Wonder what they want?” or “it’s election time...” I’ve attended illegal private meetings (all board members present) with groups of homeowners in a place convenient for them. Why can’t these folks come to the regular board meetings so discussion is open to ALL residents of Olive. Maybe the situation is something that needs addressing in other parts of town, but regardless, deserves to be handled in an open fashion. If the board needs to discuss any topic at length, then well they should. But it should ALL be in public, with ample notice so the public can attend.
For too many years, this town board would rather not have any participation from the outside. They would rather keep things quiet - which is why we are paying higher taxes, still don’t have a cell tower and some of our roads have been closed by NYC. Sorry, but I for one, think we have stayed quiet too long.
Sincerely,
Cindy Johansen
West Shokan, NY

Dear Editor,
Chris Johansen advances a noteworthy observation in his letter as published in the November 11 edition which, if accurate, casts the Commissioner Schanck affair in a new and different light.
In all of the smoke and mirrors of the allegations exchanged between Schanck, town board members, the supervisor and the Johansens and whatever
attendant appearances of impropriety and political motive suggested themselves, it has never been demonstrated that Mr. Schanck possessed a valid Florida driver's license. If this is, indeed, a fact then it changes the basic complexion of the case.
Since Robert Schanck served the commission on a volunteer basis, without
compensation, his service was of obvious benefit to the town and it's scarcely surprising that town officials might bend a bit on the issue of his residence - as long as he technically met the criteria of having a local address as "primary residence." His contributions to the foundation of the Olive Police Force are a matter of record and in no way diminish the contributions of Robert Adsit and Richard Ostrander, both of whom have been honored by the town board.
One can also attribute legitimate concern on Johansen's part, as a local businessman, a former peace officer and as a citizen, over the issue of Schanck's availability to serve the post at any given time, without even a trace of political motivation. A desire to restructure the local police department in the model of other agencies whose proportions and functions
may be unsuited to local needs would, however, suggest a political perspective but it must be pointed out that Mr. Johansen has not explicitly demanded such changes. Meanwhile, the underlying question of Schanck's actual availability assumes importance in proportion to any demonstration of his lack of it. It has, thusfar, been unclear as to how much of his time the commissioner spent here or elsewhere.
However, if records of a voter registration and driver's license in another state emerge - and, until produced, these remain merely allegations and have been reported in these pages as such - this would directly challenge the legitimacy of Schanck's claim of a "primary residence" in Olive. If factual, it would, in effect, render him ineligible for a position he has already resigned.
No one ever seemed to dispute the fact that Commissioner Schanck maintained separate residences in both Saugerties and in Sarasota County, Florida. The question came down to "primary residence" and a wink and a nod. Appearances, at very least, were mildly deceptive. The benefits to the town in the situation were readily apparent if one looked beyond a glance but how it may have benefited Mr. Schanck, beyond the gratification of further serving a community he had worked in and lived in for many years, has never been credibly established.
Gary Alexander
West Shokan, NY